Apperception and Linguistic Contact between German and Afrikaans

By

Jeremy Bergerson

A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements

for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

in

German

in the

Graduate Division

of the

University of California, Berkeley

Committee in charge:

Professor Irmengard Rauch, Co-Chair Professor Thomas Shannon, Co-Chair

Professor John Lindow Assistant Professor Jeroen Dewulf

Spring 2011

1

Abstract

Apperception and Linguistic Contact between German and Afrikaans

by

Jeremy Bergerson

Doctor of Philosophy in German

University of California, Berkeley

Proffs. Irmengard Rauch & Thomas Shannon, Co-Chairs Speakers of German and Afrikaans have been interacting with one another in Southern Africa for over three hundred and fifty years. In this study, the linguistic results of this intra-Germanic contact are addressed and divided into two sections: 1) the influence of German (both Low and High German) on Cape Dutch/Afrikaans in the years 1652–1810; and 2) the influence of Afrikaans on Namibian German in the years 1840–present. The focus here has been on the lexicon, since lexemes are the first items to be borrowed in contact situations, though other grammatical borrowings come under scrutiny as well.

The guiding principle of this line of inquiry is how the cognitive phenonemon of Herbartian apperception, or, Peircean abduction, has driven the bulk of the borrowings between the languages. Apperception is, simply put, the act of identifying a new perception as analogous to a previously existing one. The following central example to this dissertation will serve to illustrate this. When Dutch, Low German, and Malay speakers were all in contact in Capetown in the 1600 and 1700s, there were three mostly homophonous and synonymous words they were using. The Dutch knew banjer 'very', the Low Germans knew banni(g) 'very, tremendous, extraordinary', and the Malays knew banja(k) 'many, a lot, often, very'. All of these words can be considered the source for the modern Afrikaans hybrid word baie 'many, much, often, very', based on earlier banja or banje. These two forms are very close in sound and meaning to banjer, banni(g), and banja(k), and consequently when, for example, a Malay speaker heard a Low German say banni(g), he apperceived it as Malay banja(k). Likewise when a Low German speaker heard the Dutch word banjer, he apperceived it is as banni(g), and so on with all potential interlocutors. The ultimate form of the word is a compromise hybrid between them all, namely banje, which was motivated by the ease with which these three source words were apperceived by the respective speakers, as well as by their semantic similarity, which was also easily apperceived.

Bearing in mind the workings of apperception, Cape Dutch/Afrikaans and Namibian German are perfect case studies for intra-Germanic linguistic contact. Parallel developments, whether arrived at independently or by shared genesis, will reinforce one another in contact, a situation which must have played itself out all throughout the history of contact between Germanic languages. Whether it was Burgundian influence on Franconian, Old Frisian on Old English, Danish on Faroese, the role of apperception must have been great in these cases of linguistic contact. In the case of German and Afrikaans in Southern Africa, the well-documented archival and printed texts put the linguist in a favorable position to examine and elucidate the nature of this linguistic contact, as one will note in the study at hand.

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION CHAPTER II: LINGUISTIC CONTACT AND APPERCEPTION 2.1 The Problem of Nomenclature: mixture, borrowing, interference and transfer 2.2 The Act of Borrowing

2.2.1 An old-established language comes in contact with a new one: Afrikaans and English 2.2.2 A language of recent immigrants comes in contact with the language of the colony:

German and Afrikaans 2.2.3 The language of a prestige group in contact with that of a totally subordinated one:

German and Rehobother Afrikaans 2.2.4 The influence of a written language on a spoken one: Standard Dutch and Afrikaans

2.3 Language Differential vs. Dialect Contact 2.4 Types of Lexical Borrowing

2.4.1 Categories of Loans 2.4.1.1 The Loanword 2.4.1.2 The Loanshift

2.5 Apperception/Abduction 2.5.1 Apperception in borrowing 2.5.2 Profundity of apperceived forms in borrowing 2.5.3 Apperception and words with multiple sources

PART ONE: GERMAN AND CAPE DUTCH IN THE CAPE COLONY, CA. 1660 – 1810 CHAPTER III: AN EXTERNAL HISTORY OF GERMAN AND CAPE DUTCH, CA. 1660 – 1810 3.0 Introduction 3.1 A Demography of German Immigration to the Cape 3.2 Jan van Riebeeck's Time, 1652-1662 3.3 Wagenaer to Van der Stel, 1662-1708 3.4 Van der Stel to Midcentury, 1708-1750 3.5 Final Half-Century of Dutch Rule, 1750-1806 3.6 Places of Origin in Europe 3.7 Interpretations of the Role of the Germans in Cape Society CHAPTER IV: AN INTERNAL HISTORY OF GERMAN AND CAPE DUTCH, CA. 1660 – 1810 4.0 Introduction 4.1 Scholarship on the German influence on Afrikaans

4.1.1 The Scholarly Debate, from Changuion to Kloeke 4.1.1.1 A.N.E. Changuion, Proeve van Kaapsch Taaleigen, 1848 4.1.1.2 N. Mansvelt, Proeve van een Kaapsch-Hollandsch Idioticon, 1885 4.1.1.3 H. Schuchardt's Review of Mansvelt, 1885 4.1.1.4 D.C. Hesseling, Het Afrikaansch, 1899 4.1.1.5 D.B. Bosman, Afrikaans en Maleis-Portugees, 1916

ii

4.1.1.6 J.J. le Roux, Handleiding in het Afrikaans voor Nederlanders, 1921 4.1.1.7 S.P.E. Boshoff, Volk en Taal van Suid-Afrika, 1921 4.1.1.8 D.B. Bosman, Oor die Ontstaan van Afrikaans, 1923 4.1.1.9 D.C. Hesseling, Het Afrikaans, 1923 4.1.1.10 S.P.E. Boshoff, Etimologiese Woordeboek van Afrikaans, 1936 4.1.1.11 G.G. Kloeke, Herkomst en Groei van het Afrikaans, 1950 4.1.1.12 Summary

4.1.2 A Close Look at the German Loans in Afrikaans 4.1.2.1 AANDAG 'family prayers' 4.1.2.2 BALDERJAN 'valerian' 4.1.2.3 BLAS 'sallow, olive-colored' 4.1.2.4 BLITS 'lightening' 4.1.2.5 (GANS EN) GAAR 'completely' 4.1.2.6 JAARHONDERD 'century' 4.1.2.7 KOEËL 'bullet' 4.1.2.8 LAER 'camp (mil.)' 4.1.2.9 NIKSNUTS 'good-for-nothing' 4.1.2.10 OMSONS 'in vain, for nothing' 4.1.2.11 OORWAKS 'box on the ears' 4.1.2.12 PEITS 'driving-whip', PIETS 'to whip' 4.1.2.13 (BY MY) SIX 'very truly' 4.1.2.14 STOLS 'proud, haughty' 4.1.2.15 STRAWASIE 'difficulty; din, disorder' 4.1.2.16 SWERNOOT, SWERNOTER 'blackguard' 4.1.2.17 (UIT)WIKS 'to hit' 4.1.2.18 VEELS GELUK! 'congratulations!, good luck!' 4.1.2.19 VERFOES 'to bungle' 4.1.2.20 WERSKAF 'to potter about'

4.1.3 An Even Closer Look at Two Afrikaans Borrowings from German 4.1.3.1 BOESMAN 'Bushman, San' 4.1.3.2 DIE 'the'

4.1.4 Apperception and Borrowings from German 4.1.5 Interpreting the Impact of German on Afrikaans

4.2 The Low German element 4.2.1 J.J. le Roux, Handleiding in het Afrikaans voor Nederlanders, 1921 4.2.2 S.P.E. Boshoff, Volk en Taal van Suid-Afrika, 1921 4.2.3 G.G. Kloeke, Herkomst en Groei van het Afrikaans, 1950 4.2.4 G.S. Nienaber, Oor Afrikaans, Tweede Deel, 1953 4.2.5 E.-M. Siegling, Die Verwandtschaft zwischen Afrikaans und den niederdeutschen Dialekten

Norddeutschlands, 1957 4.2.6 F.D. du Plooy, Einige Beobachtungen zu niederdeutschen Einschlägen im Afrikaansen, 1966;

Moontlike Raakpunte tussen Platduits en Afrikaans, 1981 4.2.7 M.C.J. Van Rensburg, Ooglopende Raakpunte tussen Afrikaans en Platduits, 1988; E.

Kotzé, ’n Fonologiese verkenning van die Nederduitse dialekte – ’n Afrikaanse perspektief, 1994 4.2.8 Summary

4.3 The Etymology of BAIE 4.3.1 The Synchrony of BAIE 4.3.2 The Textual Tradition of BAIE

iii

4.3.3. Theories on the Origin of BAIE 4.3.3.1 The French Theory 4.3.3.2 The Malay Theory 4.3.3.3 The Low German Theory 4.3.3.4 The Apperception-Based Reconciliation Theory

4.4 Conclusion PART TWO: GERMAN AND AFRIKAANS IN NAMIBIA, CA. 1840 – PRESENT CHAPTER V: AN EXTERNAL HISTORY OF AFRIKAANS AND GERMAN IN NAMIBIA, CA. 1840 – PRESENT 5.0 Introduction 5.1 The Speakers of Namibian German 5.2 Afrikaans in Namibia: Namas, Oorlams, Basters and Afrikaners 5.3 German in Namibia: Missionaries, Soldiers and Colonists 5.4 Three Regional Studies: the South, the Center, and the North of Namibia

5.4.1 The South: German Missionaries, Namas, Oorlams and Cape Afrikaners 5.4.2 The Center of Namibia: Germans, Basters and Afrikaners 5.4.3 The North of Namibia: Germans, Dorslandtrekkers and Angola Boers

5.5 German-Language Schools in Namibia, 1915-present 5.6 Conclusion CHAPTER VI: AN INTERNAL HISTORY OF AFRIKAANS AND GERMAN IN NAMIBIA, CA. 1840 – PRESENT 6.0 Introduction 6.1 The Afrikaans Varieties of Namibia: Oranjerivierafrikaans, Dorslandafrikaans, Standard

Afrikaans 6.1.1 Oranjerivierafrikaans 6.1.2 Dorslandafrikaans 6.1.3 Standard Afrikaans 6.2 The Periodization of Namibian German 6.2.1 The Missionary Period: ca. 1840-1884 6.2.2 The Period of German Colonial Rule: 1884-1915 6.2.3 The Period of South African Rule: 1915-1990 6.2.4 The Period of Namibian Independence: 1990-present 6.3 Etymological Notes on a few Namibian German Words 6.4 Apperception and Borrowings in Namibian German 6.5 Conclusion CHAPTER VII: CONCLUSION WORKS CITED APPENDIX A: CAPE DUTCH LETTERS WRITTEN BY GERMANS

iv

APPENDIX B: THE BAIE-POLEMIC IN DE VOLKSTEM, 1908-1909

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION Speakers of German and Dutch have been interacting with one another in the Southern African theater since 1652. In that year, Jan van Riebeeck established a victualing station on the Cape of Good Hope by the orders of the Dutch East India Company. Germans working for the East India Company were there from the start, working and settling on the Cape throughout the entire period of Dutch rule in South Africa, which lasted until 1806. During this whole period German speakers contributed to the dialect of aptly-named Dutch that was evolving on the Cape, i.e. Cape Dutch. This dialect in turn developed into the Afrikaans language, which came into a recognizable form in the last quarter of the eighteenth century.

Social commerce between German and Dutch speakers did not end there. By the year 1840, German missionaries were active in Namibia, and Afrikaans had been established as one of the languages of the land. Germans were obliged to learn it if they were to work amongst the Namas and Oorlams, the two main users of Afrikaans in Namibia at the time. The two groups were related but different. While the Namas were an ethnic unity, the Oorlams were a mixed-race group, descending from both Nama and Cape Coloured ancestry. The Namas used Afrikaans only as a lingua franca, while the Oorlams also used it amongst themselves. More and more Germans poured into Namibia as the 1800s progressed, as did Afrikaans-speaking Boers from the Southern African Republic and Cape Afrikaners from the Cape Colony. Whereas it had been German that influenced Afrikaans in the 1600 and 1700s, this time it was Afrikaans that would influence Namibian German in the 1800 and 1900s. It is this important intra-Germanic linguistic contact, first German influencing Afrikaans and then Afrikaans influencing German, that is the subject of the study at hand.

There are two aspects of this contact situation that make it valuable. The first has to do with a cognitive phenomenon called either apperception or, in the semiotic nomenclature of Charles Sanders Peirce, abduction. It is, simply put, the act of identifying a new perception as analogous to a previously existing one. It can be as fleeting and subconscious as when one hears a foreign word and construes it as a native one, as often happens in folk etymology. In this act, the listener is apperceiving the unknown as the known; e.g. Afrikaans baiesukkel (lit. baie 'much', sukkel 'to struggle') for bicycle. Apperception can give rise to more substantive words than this jocular creation. When, for example, Dutch, Low German, and Malay speakers were all in contact in Capetown in the 1600 and 1700s, there were three mostly homophonous and synonymous words they were using. The Dutch knew banjer 'very', the Low Germans knew banni(g) 'very, tremendous, extraordinary', and the Malays knew banja(k) 'many, a lot, often, very'. All of these words can be considered the source for the modern Afrikaans hybrid word baie 'many, much, often, very', based on earlier banja or banje. These two forms are very close in sound and meaning to banjer, banni(g), and banja(k), and consequently when, for example, a Malay speaker heard a Low German say banni(g), he apperceived it as Malay banja(k). Likewise when a Low German speaker heard the Dutch word banjer, he apperceived it is as banni(g), and so on with all potential interlocutors.

2

That the understanding of semiotic apperception could fuel the evolution of such a profound lexical element in the Afrikaans language speaks to its efficacy in refining linguistic concepts in language contact. It is especially efficacious when two languages that are closely related are in contact, because they will have a certain number of shared grammatical, phonological or lexical items. One of the key issues surrounding such contact is how to label it. Scholars have variously called it language contact or dialect contact. The problem with the former is that the term can apply to languages that are unrelated, e.g., the contact between Finnish and English speakers in Minnesota, or those that are so closely related as to be considered dialects, e.g. the contact between Middle Dutch speakers and Middle English speakers in Kent in the 1200s. The term dialect contact has the drawback of being limited to dialects of the same language, for if one were to discuss the contact between, for example, German and Flemish speakers in eastern Belgium as dialect contact, both groups would take umbrage at being categorized as a speaker of the other's language, despite their great linguistic affinity. For these reasons, I have chosen two different terms to deal with these situations. Instead of having to decide between language and dialect contact, I have chosen the term linguistic contact, which can be applied to any situation. I also chose to speak of Einar Haugen's concept of language differential when discussing the degree of relatedness between these languages, which is the usual criterion for determining whether they are dialects or not. Closely-related languages have a low differential, as do dialects of the same language. However, interestingly, two dialects can have a greater differential than two languages do: e.g. the languages Low German and Dutch have a lower differential than do the dialects Low German and Walserdeutsch, a very conservative dialect spoken in Switzerland.

The intra-Germanic contact under investigation here is exemplary as regards the role of apperception and its outcomes. Because of the affinity between German (High and Low) and Cape Dutch, a great amount of German linguistic material has made its way into Afrikaans. That same high degree of affinity eased the entrance of a whole range of Afrikaans material into Namibian German. Accordingly, this study is divided into two parts, each covering roughly a century and a half. The first is that of German and Cape Dutch/Afrikaans, ca. 1650-1810. The second is that of Afrikaans and Namibian German, ca. 1840-present. In order to better delineate the various dialects and ethnic groups concerned here, a word must be said on the question of terminology.

In this study, I make use of the following terms:

Cape Dutch: refers to the ancestors and language of the Afrikaners on the Cape in the years 1650-1775; Afrikaans: the language of the Afrikaners everywhere from the year 1775 to the present; Cape Afrikaner: an Afrikaans-speaking white from the Cape, ca. 1775-1925; Boer: refers to an Afrikaans-speaking white from the former provinces of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State from ca. 1830 to 1925; Afrikaner: a word that has multiple uses: 1) post-1925 Afrikaans-speaking white from the Union or Republic of South Africa; 2) a member of the Oorlam Afrikaner tribe; 3) used when it is unclear whether the personality in question is either a Boer or a Cape Afrikaner; Namibian Afrikaner: refers to descendents of Cape Afrikaners, Boers, or Afrikaners who grew up in Namibia; Namibian German: Germans who live in Namibia and speak Namibian German; Namibia: this country had no name before the Germans laid claim to it, calling it Deutsch-Südwestafrika (German South West Africa) from 1884-1915, the South Africans called it

3

South West Africa from 1915-1990, and now it is called Namibia, that it is easiest to call it Namibia at all times.

It will become clear throughout the course of this study how the linguistic back-and-forth between German (High German, Low German, Namibian German) and Netherlandic (Dutch, Cape Dutch, Afrikaans) has shaped both Afrikaans and Namibian German. The results of this contact belong to all categories of linguistics, the syntax, phonology, morphology, and lexicon have all been affected, though none more profundly so than the lexicon has. It is a truism that words are the first items to be borrowed in contact situations, and the cases of Afrikaans and Namibian German bear this out. In all of the case studies presented here, the focus is on the apperceptive quality of the borrowings as the essential mode of cognition.

4

CHAPTER II

LANGUAGE CONTACT AND ABDUCTION 2.1 THE PROBLEM OF NOMENCLATURE: MIXTURE, BORROWING, INTERFERENCE AND TRANSFER The results of language contact have been given many names. Hermann Paul called it Mischung 'mixture' (Paul 1898:365), a term which Whitney (1881) and Hugo Schuchardt both took up. The problem with describing language contact as mixture is that the metaphor implies that two or more languages can be poured into a bowl, mixed around, and out of this mixture one gets a new language. For this reason, both Leonard Bloomfield (1933) and Edward Sapir (1921) chose to speak about borrowing, though Sapir titled the chapter that deals with this "How Languages Influence Each Other". Borrowing is itself problematic, because it implies something being temporarily taken away with the consent of the lender, though in language, nothing is lost by the lender nor is the lender's consent given. Haugen (1969:362) admitted the imperfection of this term, but thought its shortcomings not sufficient enough to abandon it. Uriel Weinreich did not approve of mixture or borrowing, and instead made the case for "interference" (1974:1) He reasoned that when a new item is taken up into a language, it perforce reorganizes some part of the language's old system of oppositions, though he admitted with reservations that sometimes syntactic or lexical items could be transferred with such little effect on the language that they could be called borrowings. Despite Weinreich's influence on the field of linguistc contact, the term borrowing has continued to be used. Appel & Muysken (1987), Romaine (1995) and Myers-Scotton (2002) use it throughout their books. Thomason (2001) prefers transfer. Despite its imperfection, borrowing is used throughout this study, in part because of its universality, in part because Haugen preferred it, and his works are still the high water mark of language contact studies. 2.2 THE ACT OF BORROWING Words are usually the first and easiest items to be borrowed. Then comes morphology and syntax, and finally phonology. Phonology is rarely borrowed, but in cases of heavy and long contact between languages, sounds do indeed move between languages. The difficulty of borrowing phones or allophones points to the importance of the setting in which languages borrow. There are many, indeed potentially infinite scenarios in which languages will borrow from one another. That said, there are three that are so common, that a discussion of them will cover the majority of cases.

The first is when the speech of a prestige group influences that of a non-prestige group. This happened in Canada, where the English rulers of Quebec enjoyed a prestige status for two hundred years; they owned the businesses, ran the government, and owned much land.

5

Québécois is consequently peppered with English words and phrases that are unknown in France. The opposite cannot be said of the Québécois influence on Canadian English.

The second is when two languages are of comparable prestige and co-exist for a long time. This sustained contact leads to borrowing, such as is the case with the famous Balkan Sprachbund of Romanian, Bulgarian, Macedonian Greek and Macedonian, all of which share certain linguistic features, the diffusion of which is attributed to the long-term contact between these languages in the southern Balkan peninsula. A colonial Germanic example of this would be the contact between Swedish and Dutch settlers in the Delaware River valley in the early years of English rule, ca. 1660-1740. In these years the Swedes and Dutch were the predominant settler communities, and because English was the prestige variety, neither language had superiority over the other. It stands to reason that there was borrowing between the groups, though because we have no linguistic evidence, this will remain a point of speculation until such time as we come across a manuscript attesting to it.

The third is when two languages are of such linguistic similarity that speakers are able to construe new linguistic items as their own, the cognitive process of which is called apperception. This is predominantly the case with languages that have, as Haugen puts it, a low language differential, such as between Danish and Faroese, or Finnish and Estonian. Here the duration and intensity of contact is less important than the affinities between the languages, and it is precisely this category of contact that is the object of this study.

These categories are umbrella concepts that describe three main impetuses in language contact, but the instances themselves are always a combination of these factors. Sometimes prestige plays a greater role for a period of time, sometimes it is the relatively egalitarian sustained contact that is most important. All contact situations show varying amounts of these lingusitic ingredients at varying times. In order to better contextualize this, I have chosen a quartet of Germanic language contact situations in Southern Africa that best describe the reality of langauge contact.

2.2.1 AN OLD-ESTABLISHED LANGUAGE COMES IN CONTACT WITH A NEW ONE: AFRIKAANS AND ENGLISH The first Dutch speakers came to South Africa in 1652, and from then onward, the Dutch language, later becoming Afrikaans, has been spoken in Africa. The colony in the first fifty years of its settlement was ethnically diverse and multilingual, so much so that by the early eighteenth century one no longer speaks of Dutch, but rather Cape Dutch, for it had changed dramatically in the mouths of so many different peoples. Cape Dutch was spoken until it had changed so much from the then-standardizing Dutch that it had become Afrikaans. The date by which this change seems to have largely happened is 1775. By 1820, the year in which the first English settlers arrived, Afrikaans was the common language of South Africa, and it had 170 years of history behind it. But the Cape Colony was under British control, and English was the sole language of the courts, the administration, and the schools. All of the capital coming into the country was held by English speakers, and the Afrikaner colonial aristocracy knew which was the wind was blowing. English was the prestige variety, but equally important, it was very similar to early Afrikaans, so much so that heavy borrowing ended up taking place. What is more, in colonial terms, the two languages ended up being in contact for a long time, almost two hundred years at the present time,

6

which is comparatively long when one considers that, for example, the colony of Australia was first colonized just over 230 years ago.

As Bruce Donaldson (1991) has meticulously shown, English has left its greatest imprint on the Afrikaans vocabulary. This includes outright borrowings for things never before encountered, such as boeliebief (bully beef), kabelkar (cable car), and sokker (soccer). But there are also borrowings for which Afrikaans words already existed, such as brekfis 'breakfast', cute, kontrêpsie 'contraption', obviously, storie 'story', or worry. For all of these words, a good Afrikaans word already existed: cute - oulik; obviously - duidelik; worry - sorg; brekfis - ontbyt/vroegstuk (itself a sixteenth century Dutch borrowing from German!); kontrêpsie - dinges; storie - verhaal. Borrowing from English has been going on for so long, that many Afrikaans speakers today worry about the dilution of their language into a sea of Anglicisms.

The degree to which the borrowings are assmiliated to the Afrikaans sound system is a good diagnostic for determining whether the word is an old or a recent borrowing. This is because once bilinguals become fully competent in their second language, sound substitution rarely occurs. Words such as bloekom 'blue gum', juts 'judge', sieling 'shilling' are considered old, because they show a substitution of the English sounds – which Afrikaans speakers were unable to pronounce – with their closest Afrikaans approximations. With bloekom, Afrikaans had no intervocalic [g] (except for in some eastern dialects), and so rendered it with its voiceless counterpart. In the case of juts, Afrikaans speakers produced the first voiced alveolar affricate with a spelling pronunciation, the glide [j], and the second voiced alveolar affricate by moving it back slightly to the postalveolar position and then devoicing it. A move from alevolar to postalveolar position is again seen in sieling. All of these words are pronounced by modern-day speakers like South African English words, given that virtually all Afrikaans speakers are now bilingual.

There are retarding factors to this influx, too, such as the standardization of Afrikaans, which gave native speakers a written prestige form to refer to. The power of nationalistic pride has also proven to help stanch the flood of English. But over the long run, the languages are so close to one another, both being unshifted North Sea Germanic dialects, and speakers borrow with such high frequency that the influence of English will continue to be felt.

2.2.2 A LANGUAGE OF RECENT IMMIGRANTS COMES IN CONTACT WITH THE LANGUAGE OF THE COLONY: GERMAN AND AFRIKAANS In the 1840s, Natal province in the eastern half of South Africa was being colonized by the British, but it was still wide open as far as colonization was concerned, and a couple of groups from Germany went and settled there. Half came to grow tobacco, and half came to evangelize to the Zulu. They settled amongst British and Afrikaner farmers, and had ample exposure to both languages, but the prestige varieties chaged throughout a few periods. The prestige language of the period 1840-1910 was English, for the British were the sole administrators of Natal at this time. From 1910-1948, Natal was governed by the reconciliation government of the Union of South Africa, and consequently both English and Dutch (after 1925, Afrikaans) were prestigious, though English probably a bit more so. In 1948 the National Party won control of parliament and immediately began a strongly pro-Afrikaans agenda which lasted until 1994, when the minority white government was voted

7

out. During these forty-four years, Afrikaans words entered Natal German faster than they ever had before, though they had been trickling in ever since the Germans arrived.

Stielau (1980) conducted a first-rate study of the German of Natal, and the following forms come from her work. The unassimilated borrowings are most numerous - which would imply that they were borrowed during the third period mentioned above. Among these are words such as apteek 'pharmacy', koppie 'hillock', and stoep 'stoop'. Assimilated words are also to be found, such as Fleh (Afr. vlei) 'slough', Kral (Afr. kraal) 'kraal', and Sprüte (Afr. spruit) 'creek'. But many of the borrowings are calques, such as Aussonderung (Afr. uitsondering) 'exception', festfragen (Afr. vasvra) 'to quiz', or umgeben (Afr. omgee) 'to care about'. These are easily spread due to the linguistic affinity between the two languages; as one can see, the morphemes in the calques are etymologically related to the Afrikaans models they copy.

One of the more curious aspects of the speakers of Natal German is that most of the colonists' ancestors were from around Osnabrück, Hannover, and Lüneberg, and were therefore predominantly speakers of Low German. However, as the years passed, they ended up switching to High German, so that almost nothing of their original Low German remains in their Natal German. Clearly, their linguistic identity was strong enough to maintain and alter the German language, but not so strong as to stem the tide of Afrikaans words that flowed in. Social prestige, but also duration of contact and linguistic affinity are all factors at play in this situation.

2.2.3 THE LANGUAGE OF A PRESTIGE GROUP IN CONTACT WITH THAT OF A NON-PRESTIGE ONE: GERMAN AND REHOBOTHER AFRIKAANS The self-appelled Rehoboth Basters, a community of mixed race (Afrikaner-Khoekhoe-Coloured), Afrikaans-speaking people arrived in present-day Namibia in the 1870s, and settled in Rehoboth, south of the capital, Windhoek. Once established, they quickly sided with the German administration that was in control of the country. They took up arms on behalf of the German administration, fighting against the Bondelswarts and other tribes, for which they were rewarded by the government. Throughout the duration of German rule (1875-1914), the Rehoboth Basters were in good standing with their German overlords, and the relationship was so cozy that quite a few Baster women ended up marrying German men, which surely helped to deepen the linguistic relationship.

And yet, here is a group that, despite its good standing with the German government, was socially subordinate to the ruling groups, Germans and Afrikaners, despite the marriages between Germans and Rehoboth women. The German colonial regime was deeply racist, so much so that it recognized almost none of the marriages. Rademeyer (1938) is one of the few linguists to have studied the language of the Rehoboth Basters, and his work is especially useful, because in 1938 there were still Basters who remembered the German administration and used German words. He was able to interview these people and write down their word usages before they died out.

As with the other groups discussed, the Rehobothers borrowed some German words wholesale, such as bild (Ger. Bild) 'picture', hits (Ger. Hitze) 'heat', and spas (Ger. Spaß) 'joke', Afrikaans prentjie, hitte, and grap would all have done just fine, but as we have already seen, words are sometimes borrowed for which the L1 (also, Target Language) already has a perfectly good one. There are also some meanings that were borrowed, as in bekwaam 'well-off, rich' (Ger. bequem 'comfortable', Afr. bekwaam 'ripe, able'), knap 'small' (Ger. knapp 'tight,

8

scarce', Afr. knap 'clever'), or stem 'to accord, agree' as in dit stem (Ger. das stimmt 'that's true', Afr. stem 'to vote'). Some calques occur as well, such as baanmeester 'station agent' (Ger. Bahnmeister, Afr. stasiemeester) and noemlike 'the very, namely' (Ger. nämliche, Afr. einste).

The influence of German on Rehobother Afrikaans today is almost nil, though there is probably still some commerce between the many German farmers who still live in Namibia and the Basters of Rehoboth. But the fact is, there are no Rehoboth Baster Afrikaans loans in Namibian German, and the prestige factor played a dominant role in the social dynamic of borrowing. Had there been more work done on Rehoboth Afrikaans back around Rademeyer's time, the extent of the influence would probably be better known, and the role of language affinity in this situation would be further fleshed out. As it stands, what we have are tantalizing examples of this contact, and they hint at a deeper linguistic relationship than that which we see here.

2.2.4 THE INFLUENCE OF A WRITTEN LANGUAGE ON A SPOKEN ONE: STANDARD DUTCH AND AFRIKAANS That language influence can occur without there being any speakers of the influencing language, has been known for a long time to German medievalists who have come across countless Latinisms in medieval German. A similar thing happened to Afrikaans during its standardization, which lasted from around 1875 to 1925. During this time, Afrikaners were striving to elevate Afrikaans from the level of a farmer's jargon to that of an international language, capable of dealing with science, politics, philosophy, and literature. The core vocabulary of Afrikaans was small, about five thousand words. An educated speaker of English or Dutch had more than double that. In order to expand the vocabulary, Afrikaans speakers turned to written standard Dutch.

There are many words in Afrikaans which have sounds in them that one does not usually associate with Afrikaans. For example, as a general rule, between a long vowel or diphthong and a schwa, [d] lenites to [j] or is lost, e.g. Du. poeder – Afr. poeier 'powder', Du. vergader – Afr. vergaar 'to gather'. So when one comes across Afr. weer 'again' (Du. weder) and Afr. wedersyds 'mutual', it is clear that the latter form is a recent borrowing from standard Dutch, because it does not conform to the sound changes that happened in Afrikaans. In the variation between [ı] and [ɛ] (Du. likken, Afr. lek 'to leak'), Afrikaans has chosen the open-mid front unrounded vowel over the near-close near-front unrounded one. Knowing this, one can clearly tell that the bookish word herdenk 'to commemorate' is a borrowing from Dutch because of the everyday word dink 'to think'. A final example will suffice. In a few words with [rn] in the coda of a word, Afrikaans velarized the nasal, e.g. Du. karnen – Afr. karring 'to churn', Du. toorn – Afr. toring 'tower'. It is then no surprise that the uncommon word doornig 'thorny', is a borrowing from Dutch, for which the native Afrikaans word is doringrig.

As Scholtz (1951:3-4) has rightly pointed out in his study of the influence of Dutch on Afrikaans, this is no hard and fast criterium for determining whether or not an Afrikaans word is a borrowing from written standard Dutch, for there have always been Afrikaners on the Cape who spoke more or less unadulterated Dutch, and they had plenty of commerce with their monolingual compatriots. Still, it is on balance a fair yardstick to use, and has served other scholars well, see Uys (1983). In the last analysis, though, we see here a combination of all three factors, prestige, duration of contact, and linguistic affinity, even in the absence of living speakers to convey the linguistic material into the recipient language.

9

2.3 LANGUAGE DIFFERENTIAL VS. DIALECT CONTACT Every linguist has heard the old adage that a language is a dialect with an army and a navy. The truth of it is clear enough; many languages exist on a continuum of intelligibility and genetic relatedness, just as dialects do. This is easily seen in the case of Dutch, which is closer to Low German than either of the two is to High German, yet Low German is considered a dialect and Dutch a language. This is because the Dutch were able to maintain their political independence during the rise of High German in the fifteenth century, and the Low German speakers were not. An army and a navy were handy indeed.

It is natural enough to point out, though, that sometimes languages are so different, that entertaining such quaint equations as the one above is silly. In the case of Finnish and English, for example, it is so clear that we are dealing with two separate languages that we need not bother invoking martial maxims to figure it out.

So how does one move forward when considering the contact between closely-related languages, such as is the case with all the Germanic languages? One could, as Trudgill (2000) did, try to draw up a series of criteria for determining whether one is faced with language or dialect contact. In doing this he looked at the contact between Middle Low German and Middle Scandinavian. He goes through the various categories of languages that arise in contact situations: pidgin, jargon, creole, creoloid, dual-source creoloid, koiné, and interlanguage and interdialect. He whittles out all but the last two, and says, "Perhaps there is a clue here in the fact that language-contact outcomes are driven by the need to establish a means of communication, while dialect-contact outcomes are driven mainly by accomodation" (82-3). Clever as this drudgery might well be, it does not solve the basic problem. What is at issue is terminology, and as we can see, the relationship between the two terms language and dialect is fraught. Instead of crafting a series of criteria for determining which flawed term to use, we ought to just use the term "linguistic contact". This obviates the entire problem, and allows the researcher to deal with the actual results of contact instead of quibbling over terminology.

Einar Haugen got around this problem by coming up with what he called the "language differential" (Haugen 1969:380-2). He illustrated it in the following way. In American Portuguese, there are two words for ice, gelo 'natural ice', and ice 'artificial ice'. One is a native word, one is a borrowing from English. He explains that the fact that Portuguese speakers picked up the English word for artificial ice shows that it was contact with American business life that brought about the borrowing. Yet, American Norwegian has had the same contact, but only one word, is is used for either natural or artificial ice. He states it axiomatically: "if a native word is similar in sound to a desired foreign word, it is often given the meanings of the foreign word; if not, it is more common to borrow the foreign word" (380). Ergo, American Portuguese and American English have a high differential, whereas American Norwegian and American English have a low one. Thus we can call languages that are similar, languages with a low language differential, those that are different, ones with a high language differential. All Germanic languages have low mutual differentials, though there can be instances at the lexical level that show a high differential; e.g. German has no homophonous word for English farm, neither Bauernhof nor Landgut capture the sense of farm, so German has borrowed it to mean 'a large plot of argicultural land one which one lives, usually in the new world'.

10

In the cases of German influence on Cape Dutch/Afrikaans and of Afrikaans on Namibian German, we are dealing with languages with low differentials. This must be borne in mind, as these two case studies unfold. 2.4 TYPES OF LEXICAL BORROWING There are two categories of lexical borrowing that are not of concern for this study: pre-immigration loans and international words. Pre-immigration loans can be between languages with a low differential, as is the case with German words that were borrowed into Dutch in the sixteenth century (see De Vooys 1946). To be sure, one must, as with the case of standardized Dutch loans in Afrikaans, be vigilant about correctly identifying a given word's provenance, lest one misidentify the loan as recent. The same goes for international words, because even though they are continuously absorbed by the recipient language, their introduction into the lexicon is not the result of the contact situations under scrutiny here.

Barring these two items, there are two types of lexical borrowings, loanwords and loanshifts. Loanwords are borrowings that import new morphemes, whether in part or whole. Loanshifts substitute native morphemes. In order for this distinction to make sense, we must first differentiate between importation and substitution. Importation is the reproduction of borrowed material in a form that more or less accords with the material's original form. Substitution, on the other hand, is the reproduction of borrowed material with native sounds. For example, in Texas German, we see two pronunciations for the loanword pature: one with [a] and one with [æ] (Boas 2009:132-3). The former is an instance of substitution, whereas the latter is one of importation.

2.4.1 CATEGORIES OF LOANS Einar Haugen delineated two categories of loanword, and two categories of loanshift (1969:402-3). The loanword is divided into the pure loanword and the loanblend. The loanshift is divided into the creation and the extension. Loanwords import morphemes, either in part or in whole. Loanshifts substitute native morphemes, whether those morphemes already existed or not. Betz (1974) contrived his own terminology for borrowing, and I will provide his terms next to Haugen's in the interest of providing a little perspective on how one can analyze borrowings. Weinreich (1974) came up with his own terms as well, and they will be given along with Betz'. Haugen remains, however, the guiding light in this study. 2.4.2 THE LOANWORD The pure loanword itself is divided into three sub-categories: 1) unassimilated (no phonemic substitution); 2) partly assimilated (some phonemic substitution); 3) wholly assimilated (complete phonemic substitution). Betz classifies all these under Lehnwort 'loanword', while Weinreich sees them as the transfer of simple words.

11

The unassimilated loanword is one that sounds "correct" in the loaning language, as when English speakers say [erzats] instead of [ıɹzɤts] for Ersatz. This is a common occurrence in linguistic contact situations of long standing, and, as was pointed out above, the greater the familiarity with the L2 (also, Source Langauge), the more importation one sees. Take, for example, American Swedish understand: "vi kan tacka Gud att vi har ett språk som vi understand" 'we can thank God that we have a language that we understand' (Ureland 1984:292). Unassimilated loanwords can co-exist with the native word for the same item, as can be seen in the case of a Pella Dutch speaker talking about the paperboy who "brengt hier de paper". His wife corrected him, saying "krant", after which he said without skipping a beat "brengt hier de krant 's morgens" 'brings the paper in the morning' (Webber 1988:93).

The partly assimilated loanword shows some phonemic substitution, and would sound to non-linguists like someone who speaks with a pretty good accent, though the speech is still accented. Such is the case of the Namibian Afrikaans loanword Haupsach for Hauptsache from Namibian German (NG) (Schlengemann 1928-9:61). Afrikaans does not allow [pt] word-finally, and so the cluster is reduced to [p], cf. Afr. stip (Du. stipt) 'prompt'. Just as the [t] is lost, so the non-morphemic word-final [ә] is apocopated, in accordance with both Afrikaans and Dutch phonotactics. Partial assimilation can also be seen in American Swedish graduejta 'to graduate': "di köm från Bethany, Ni ser, College, di graduejta" 'they came from Bethany College, you see, they graduate' (Ureland 1984:293). Here there is a substitution of American English [ei] with American Swedish [ej].

The wholly assimilated loanword sounds like a "heavy accent" in the loaning language. Sometimes when the two languages in contact have a high language differential, the assmililated word can depart strikingly from the model in the loaning language. Take, for example, American Finnish sahti for American English shaft (Virtaranta 1981:305). Surely the former, though it looks not too dissimilar on paper, would be almost unintelligble to an English speaker, since replacing the voiceless postalveolar fricative and the alveolar one are not allophones in English, just as the fricatives [h] and [f] are not in allophonic variation in American English But languages need not have a high differential in order to have unassimilated loanwords. We can look again at the treatment of American English pasture in Texas German, where sixty percent of speakers say [pastә] (Boas 2009:160).

Loanblends are borrowings that consist of both loan phonemes and native morphemes, and are divided into three subcategories: 1) stem (meaningless suffix substitution); 2) derivative (meaningful suffix substitution); 3) compound (independent morpheme substitution).

The stem loanblend, or blended stem, is characterized by the substitution of a morpheme that means nothing, and is clearly an attempt by the borrower to make sense of the word instead of just reproducing it on a phonetic basis. Its primary quality is having a suffix that is meaningless and does not reflect an attempt to reproduce the sound of the word in the loaning language. It is a comparatively rare kind of borrowing between Germanic languages. I am yet to come across any in the languages I have looked at.

The derivative loanblend, or blended derivative, occurs when a suffix has been substituted with a meaningful native morpheme. The dialectal American English word logy (pronounced with [g]) 'heavy, dull' is a blended derivative of New Netherland Dutch (NND) log 'heavy, dull' and the native adjectival suffix -y (Carpenter 1908:12). Looking to North Germanic, we can take American Swedish countryt 'the country', with the imported morpheme country and the Swedish suffixed neuter definite article -t (Ureland 1984:305).

The compound loanblend, or blended compound has two forms: nuclear and marginal. A nuclear compound loanblend consists of an imported nucleus. There is an old nuclear

12

compound loanblend in American English, coleslaw from New Netherland Dutch koolsla (kool 'cabbage', sla 'salad'), which consists of the meaningful morpheme cole 'cabbage, brassica', and the borrowed slaw. While cole is no longer in use in standard American English, it was at one time a common word used for cabbage, brassicas, or certain native North American plants that resembled cabbage, see Leighton (1970:262-3). The first element, the nucleus, is a native morpheme, hence the term nuclear loanblend. A marginal loanblend is the Rehobother Afrikaans borrowing resiermes 'shaving razor' from NG Rasiermesser (Afr. skeermes), where the marginal element is the native morpheme mes 'knife'. Another marginal loanblend is Afrikaans die nimlike 'the very' from German der/die/das nämliche 'the very' (Scholtz 1979). The loanblend is on the border between loanwords and loan-meanings (loanshifts), because part of the word is a translation of the model word in the L2 and is therefore, in part, a loanshift.

2.4.3 THE LOANSHIFT The creation involves the arrangement of native morphemes on the model of the borrowing. This is sometimes called a calque, and is itself divided into literal and approximate. The loanshift is far and away the most popular type of borrowing between the Germanic languages, and it is the type of borrowing for which Betz devised the most terms.

The literal creation is a word-for-word translation which, although not already existing the the borrowing language, makes sense to the bilingual. Betz calls this the Lehnübersetzung 'loan-translation'; Weinreich uses loan-translation. There are numerous examples, but a few will suffice. We can look to Texas German [foıәrplats] modeled on English fireplace (Gilbert 1965:111). As far as I know, Feuerplatz is a recent innovation in German that refers only to the pit in which one has a campfire. The Texas German word is used for Herd 'fireplace'. American Swedish rätt här 'right here' is also a literal creation (Sw. precis här), as is allt över 'all over (the place)' (Sw. överallt) (Ureland 1984:299). The influence of New Netheland Dutch on American English was mentioned above, but the influence goes in the other direction in the New Netheland Dutch word ghisterdagh (Du. gisteren) rendered on the model of English yesterday (Noordegraaf 2008:18), or njuespampîr for newspaper (Du. nieuwsblad, krant) (Prince 1910:477).

The approximate creation, or, as Betz puts it, the Lehnübertragung 'loan-transfer' is a borrowing that is clearly inspired by the model in the loaning language, but which uses different morphemes in a different arrangement. Weinreich prefers to call this a loan-rendition. It is not a common type of borrowing between Germanic languages. Stil, it does happen sometimes. Take Texas German Welschkorn 'maize, corn' (Gilbert 1965:106). This is probably modeled on the now obsolete Indian corn, where welsch replaces Indian, meaning as it does 'outsider, foreigner', cf. the name for the Austrian wine Welschriesling 'riesling from Italy', where Italy is the closest land of foreigners in viticulture.

Homophonous extension, or Lehnbedeutung 'loan-meaning', is when there is only a sound correspondence that facilitates the borrowing. In the case of Pella Dutch lijk for the English adverb like and lijken for the verb to like (Webber 1988:97), as well as NND lāike 'to like' (Prince 1910:476), there is some foothold for the borrower in that gelijk 'similar to' is analogous to English like 'similar to', but that is where the correspondence ends. The borrowed meanings are dissimilar enough that this should be regarded as a homophonous extension. Sometimes the original meaning of the word can be very different from that of the semantic borrowing, e.g. NND keeren 'to want' (Prince 1910:483). This was probably first

13

borrowed from 'to care', which became 'to want', cf. kêre 'care' (470). Prince (483) believes this to come from Dutch zich aan niets keren 'to care for nothing', but surely the Dutch phrase has more to do with turning, as in 'to turn one's attention to'. This represents a bigger departure than that of the Pella Dutch lijk and lijken. Interesting among these, and compelling evidence that linguistic affinity is a key motivator in borrowing, are the following: Pella Dutch graad 'grade, level (in school)' (Webber 1988:96), Texas German Grad 'grade, level (in school)' (Gilbert 1965:111), Natal German Grad 'grade, level (in school)' (Stielau 1980:73). In all of these instances, the original meaning was 'degree', which, being semantically unlike the borrowed meaning, makes these homophonous, based on sound only.

Haugen differentiates the homophonous loanshifts from the homologous. As we just saw, homophonous shifts occur strictly by virtue of their sound. Homologous shifts, on the other hand, are a product of similarity between sound and meaning. Recently, the Israeli linguist Ghil'ad Zuckermann (2004:283) introduced the terms "multisourced neologization" or "camouflaged borrowing" to describe the subconscious act of simultaneous importation and substitution, an idea that is essentially the same as Haugen's category of homologous extension. This would seem to be the case with NND hôxhāit 'height' (Prince 1910:474), which in standard Dutch means 'highness'. Another Germanic dialect in the northeast of the United States is Pennsylvania Dutch, which has many loanshifts. An example of a homologous loanshift is the word schlappig [ʃlapıç] (Schach 1951:263), which means 'flabby, slovenly' in standard German, but has acquired the English meaning 'sloppy'. One more example will do. Australian Dutch has the word speciaal, which has acquired the English sense of 'especially, particularly', as in "speciaal toen we in de hills kwamen" 'especially when we came in the hills' (Clyne 2003:77). Standard Dutch speciaal only means 'specially', as in "specially designed", etc. That Australian English uses specially where American English uses especially, and especial where American English uses special probably contributed to this development.

Synonymous extensions are based solely on semantic affinity. Betz classifies these under Lehnbedeutung while Weinreich puts them under polysemy. Thus NND dwās 'across, over' (Prince 1910:468) has acquired the new sense of American English across as in "across the road" (Ger. gegenüber), which does not exist in standard Dutch dwars 'across, diagonal from'. Sometimes previous distinctions are lost in synonymous extensions, as is the case of Pennsylvania Dutch bitte 'ask, request' and fraage 'ask, inquire' syncretizing to just fraage 'ask, request, inquire' (Costello 1997). Likewise the old opposition Dorf : Stadt 'village' : 'town/city' was lost in Texas German, where only Stadt 'town (small or large)' remains (Gilbert 1965:111). Because of the way in which agricultural land was settled in nineteenth-century America, no villages arose, but neither did proper cities, so that the only term that made sense to American English speakers was town, which is duly reflected in Texas German

Haugen's terminology is not always perfect, and we should not expect it to be, which is why Betz and Weinreich are helpful, for more, see Betz (1974), Wells (1984:276). Still, something ought to be said about homology and analogy in light of Haugen. In biology, one speaks of analogous and homologous morphology. Analogous refers to morphological structures shared by different life-forms but of different origins. For example, both birds and bats have wings. The bird's wing evolved in the Jurassic period, far after the first mammals had evolved out of proto-reptiles in the Carboniferous period, and the bat's wing evolved reltively recently. Clearly, the only thing they share is the use of their "arms", but the developments are convergent, that is, they came to the same conclusion along different ways.

14

This is most similar to the synonymous extension, where the words are not etymologically related, but their fuctions (meanings) are. Of course, the analogy between words is of semantic fields, not of individual semantemes, as with American Portuguese frio 'a cold (infection)'. English cold can be either a noun 'illness' or an adjective 'low temperature', and Portuguese frio means 'a cold spell'. The three senses are all related – cold 'illness' comes from the sense of being cold and then becoming sick – and yet none of them is perfectly synonymous. So it is with bird and bat wings: they are both for flying, but the individual flights are different.

Homologous structures share the same origin, but serve different functions. For example, the fingers of bats have become long and grown more cartilege and skin between them. They are used for flight. Our fingers, on the other hand, have shortened over time, and are bony and prehensile. They are used for wielding tools. These two structures diverged from the same source, and are thus related, but their functions are totally different. This would seem to be the same problem with homophonous extensions. Of course, bats and hominids have both kept their hands ever since diverging from the same ancestor, while words need not follow such a path. Take American Finnish majuri 'mayor' (Virtaranta 1981:308), which in Finnish only means 'major (mil.)'. Both mayor and majuri have the same source, Latin major, but did not enter English and Finnish at precisely the same time, unlike the situation with bats' and our fingers. Despite this lack of parallelism, the fact that they share a common ancestor (are cognate), is enough to argue for homology. Of course, homophonous items might not be homologous, as with American Finnish parkata 'to strip bark' gaining the meaning 'to park (a car)' from American English park. This comes up more often with genetically unrelated languages, but between Germanic ones, homology is more common.

Of course, synonymous and homophonous are linguistic terms and there are advantages to using them. Haugen runs into a little trouble, though, when he talks of homologous extensions as ones that are both homophnous and synonymous, because his definition of homology is idiosyncratic. Why he chose homologous to refer to extensions that share synonymy and homophony is unclear, but in the interests of keeping the terminology in this study consistent, I will follow Haugen's nomenclature. The point here is, however, that the question of homology and analogy remains pertinent to the Germanic languages and their mutual interactions.

The loanshift is important in intra-Germanic contact, because the majority of borrowings in such contact are themselves loanshifts. Haugen (1969:401) puts it perfectly, writing: "The popularity of such loanshifts as these in AmN makes it clear that the similarity of E and N is a definite factor in promoting linguistic confusion. It is tempting to pour new wine into the old bottles when the old bottles are scarcely distinguishable from the new. More precisely one may say: a partial overlapping of sound or meaning can be the starting point of a complete identification". And what is that identifaction? It is apperception as described by Herbart, abduction as described by Peirce. 2.5 ABDUCTION/APPERCEPTION Oftentimes when people encounter new things, they bring the novelty in line with what they already know. For example, when the English first settled in North America, they saw the bird turdus migratorius (American robin), and noticed the redness of its breast. This they

15

associated with its analogously red-breasted fellow avian erithacus rubecula (European robin), and, logically enough, they called it by the same name, robin. Likewise, when the Dutch settled in the Cape of Good Hope, they encountered proteles cristata (hyena) and not having seen anything like it, called it by the name of the most similar animal they could conjure, i.e. wolf. While this is halfway an act of ignorance - having never seen these animals before is ignorace, but having associated them with a known quantity is not - it is not an act of stupidity, rather it is a basic function of cognition. Consider what happens when one has never seen a certain tree before; it is not approached as some incomprehensible unit, rather the perceiver brings it in line with other trees because it shares certain characteristics: a plant that is tall, bark-covered, brachiating, and stiff. The details might differ; the bark might be flaky, grooved, or smooth, the leaves might be smooth-edged, serrated, pronged, but it is recognizable as a tree. This fundamental aspect of perception and learning inspired a wealth of scholarship by nineteenth-century pedagogs. The name they gave it is apperception.

The term has historically had two meanings: 1) conscious perception, metacognition; and 2) the melding of a new perception with a pre-existing one. Descartes was the first to call conscious perception apperception. Knowing that one is perceiving is not new, but calling it apperception was, for Descartes, a novelty. He inspired Leibniz who inspired Kant who inspired the scholars who dealt with the phenomenon described in the second sense given here. Herbart (1825) is, as far back as I can trace, the first scholar to use the term apperception to describe the kind of learning by which a novel concept or percept melds with one already held.1 His idea was taken up by successive thinkers, foremost among whom are Wilhelm Max Wundt (1862), Moritz Lazarus (1876), Heymann Steinthal (1881), and Wilhelm Volkmann Volkmar (1895) and they did so always within the context of psychology and pedagogy, with the exception of Steinthal, who wrote about psychology and linguistics. A recitation of all these views would take us too far afield for the present study; Karl Lange (1895) dealt comprehensively with all of them, and for those interested in matters purely psychological and pedagogical, his work is the authority. Suffice it to say that the idea of apperception slowly fell out of fashion in the early twentieth century, largely because scholars kept broadening its definition until it became so vague as to simply mean 'cognition'. Von Humboldt's inner sense underwent a similar fate (Leopold 1929), but in spite of that, apperception meaning 'to perceive a new concept or percept with a similar one already held' is a good term.2 Though Herbart was the first European scholar to discover this, an American logician named Charles Sanders Peirce hit upon the same idea independently, and called it abduction.

1 Herbart (1825:215): "Nämlich bey der äußern Wahrnehmung ist offenbar diese selbst das Appercipirte; und die aus dem Innern hervorkommende, mit ihr verschelzende, Vortstellungsmasse ist das Appercipirende. Die letztere ist die bey weitem mächtigere; sie ist gebildet aus allen frühern Auffassungen; damit kommt die neue Wahrnehmung auch bey der größten Stärke der momentanen Auffassung nicht in Vergleich, zudem wegen der abnehmenden Empfänglichkeit; - und deshalb muß sie sich gefallen lassen, hineingezogen zu werden in die schon vorhandenen Verbindungen und Bewegungen der älteren Vorstellungen." 'Clearly, it is the outer perception that is the apperceived, while that which comes from within, the idea that melds with it, is the apperceiving. The latter is far and away stronger; it is composed of all previous conceptions. Thus the new perception, however strong it might be, pales in comparison to the apperceiving. For this reason it must tolerate being forced into the pre-existing connections and movements of the older conceptions'. 2 Apperception is from Latin adpercipere 'to perceive to', whereas abduction is from Latin abducere 'to lead away'. The sense to perceiving something to another thing, in our case perceiving the unknown as the known, is more applicable to this study, because abduction highlights the unknown, whereas apperception highlights the known.

16

Peirce saw abduction as the first of three steps in logical thought: abduction, induction, deduction. Deduction is the belief that the facts of the premisses (judgments) could not be true without involving the truth of the conclusion. This is basis of the traditional scholarship of observation. Induction, on the other hand, is when one already holds a theory, and believes that if that theory is true, then it will be borne out under certain circumstances. This is the hypothesis part of the scientific method. But abduction is different from these two, because it, unlike induction and deduction, is pre-conscious, not involving any calculation. Peirce describes it best, so I will quote him in full: "Presumption, or, more precisely, abduction ... furnishes the reasoner with the problematic theory which induction verifies. Upon finding himself confronted with a phenomenon unlike what he would have expected under the circumstances, he looks over its features and notices some remarkable character or relation among them, which he at once recognizes as being characteristic of some conception with which his mind is already stored, so that a theory is suggested which would explain (that is, render necessary) that which is surprising in the phenomena." (Peirce 1932:497). Anttila (1977:14) bridges the gap between the pedagogs who espoused the theory of apperception and Peirce when he writes that "any learning or understanding must be by abduction, which stands as the basis for all predictions." Learning is clearly of the highest importance when talking about linguistic contact, for the act of importation, whether of models or forms, is an act of learning. No wonder, then, that Wundt, Lazarus, Steinthal and Volkmar were all concerned with apperception in respect of pedagogy.

Reilly (1970:50) puts it well: "Interpretation occurs in widely differing ways in the perceptual judgment. 'We perceive what we are adjusted for interpreting,' even though it be less perceptible than that for which we are less adjusted (5.185). And conversely, we fail to perceive the more perceptible, because we are not adjusted for interpreting it. We may interpret a drawing now as a serpentine line, now as a stone wall. An optical illusion will be interpreted as steps ascending, and a moment later as steps descending."

2.5.1 APPERCEPTION IN BORROWING

While in the fields of psychology and pedagogy the notion of apperception had been dealt with explicitly, in contact linguistics, and more specifically in the study of loan words, it was arrived at implicitly.

The earliest tacit recognition of apperception in language contact that I have come across is by the American linguist William Dwight Whitney. He hit on apperception in his 1881 article "On Mixture in Language", a long and thoughtful paper inspired by the works of Max Müller. In it he states the following (18-9): "There is nothing in English borrowing to give any support to the doctrine that one tongue can learn from another a grammatical distinction, or a mode of its expression, formerly unknown: for instance, the prepositional construction of nouns, period-building with help of conjunctions, formation by affix of comparatives or abstracts or adverbs, or of tenses or numbers or persons." [italics mine] He is followed up by another American linguist, Edward Sapir - who studied in Leipzig with Wundt - who states: "English borrowed an immense number of words from the French of the Norman invaders, later also from the court French of Isle de France, appropriated a certain number of affixed elements of derivational value (e.g., -ess of princess, -ard of drunkard, -ty of royalty), may have been somewhat stimulated in its general analytic drift by contact with French, and even allowed French to modify its phonetic pattern slightly (e.g., initial v and j in

17

words like veal and judge; in words of Anglo-Saxon origin v and j can only occur after vowels, e.g., over, hedge). Perhaps the reason for this borrowing lies partly in the fact that OE /cg/ had already become the voiced postalveolar affricate [dʒ] and was therefore the closest approximation to Norman French j [what was this, exactly? the affricate or the fricative?]." (1921:206). And where there is Sapir, there is the other great American linguist of that era, Leonard Bloomfield. Bloomfield discusses many aspects of borrowing, some of which have an apperceptive component. His discussion of loan-translations begins by noting that sometimes speakers who introduce foreign things call them by native terms for equivalent things. Thus, pagan easter, which used to refer to a festival to the goddess of dawn, was transfered into the christian sphere (1933:455). While this is not a comment on linguistics per se, it is certainly one on apperception, implicit though it may have been, and highlights how both linguistic and cultural items can be transferred in the same way.

Interestingly enough, there is a South African linguist of the same period who explicitly mentions apperception in word borrowing. S.P.E. Boshoff, who will be handled in depth in chapter three, calls the results of folk etymology "appersepsie", which he defines as "die aanpassing van wat vreemd, onbekend en onverstaanbaar is by die bekende (in klank, betekenis, ens.)" 'the assimilation of that which is foreign, unknown and incomprehensible to the known' (1921:341). Not surprisingly, his book, written as it was in Afrikaans and published in South Africa, had no effect on American linguistics. But he was certainly right, for it is the definition of folk etymology that obscure, unknown terms are rendered in terms that are known.

Einar Haugen describes apperception when he writes: "This behavior is evidence of some kind of subtle reaction in his brain, by means of which he recognized a partial similarity of meaning and form within a complex morpheme. The linguist makes this procedure explicit by saying that the borrowed form shows partial morphemic substitution." (1969:389). And again (401): "The popularity of such loanshifts as these in AmN makes it clear that the similarity of E and N is a definite factor in promoting linguistic confusion. It is tempting to pour new wine into old bottles when the old bottles are scarcely distinguishable from the new."

Henning Andersen sought to apply abduction to linguistics in a thoughtful and innovative article on a phonological peculiarity in an Old Czech dialect (Andersen 1973). In it he discusses the change of sharped /p/ to /t/, of sharped /b/ to /d/ and of sharped /m/ to /n/ in certain words, and attributes the changes to an underlying dental pronunciation of the labials that led to an apperception of them as dentals. That is, [p,] is somewhere between [p] and [t], and is heard by the listener as [t] instead of [p]. Andersen calls this abduction. David Savan took some issue with Andersen's characterization of abduction here, claiming that it does not strictly correspond to the Peircean model (Savan 1980:261). Rauch agrees with both Andersen and Savan, saying that this change is, in essence, abduction (1999:177).

Reilly (1970:38): "Abduction alone gives us an understanding of things. At first, it is only a weak argument, a mere surmise, but every step in the development of vague ideas into present-day science began as a weak conjecture". Of course, a scientific hypothesis is subject to a greater amount of rigor in its confirmation than a loanword is. Hypotheses must be tested and verfied, whereas all a word-borrower need do is use the abduced/apperceived form and receive confirmation from other speakers by their understanding the novel usage. This begs the question of how the other speakers can understand the new speech item, and the answer must be that they apperceive it in the same or a similar way. That said, one should not forget that these are all questions of causality, which, as Rauch points out (1999:171), we have at best a slippery grasp of. Still, while precision in determining causality

18

might elude us, one thing is clear, that abduction/apperception is the category to which it belongs.

2.5.2 PROFUNDITY OF APPERCEIVED FORMS IN BORROWING

One of the first American linguists, William Dwight Whitney noted rather intuitively, for there was, at the time, no body of literature dedicated to bilingualism or linguistic contact, that those languages which have the most in common will borrow and loan with greater frequency than will be the case between wholly unrelated languages (Whitney 1881:15). For this reason it is important and efficient to recall Haugen's "language differential" in determining how profound linguistic contact can be. With a bit of common linguistic sense, it is fair to make a few assumptions: 1) if the two languages are cognate to one another, the differential will be low, say between Icelandic and German; 2) if those cognate languages belong to the same subdivision, say, between Icelandic and Swedish (North Germanic), then the factor will be even lower; but 3) if the two languages are from genetically distinct families, say, Finnish and Faroese, then the factor will be high.3

If I could offer a short aside, a word or two on art history is more fitting here than one might at first think. The art historian Sir Kenneth Clark once described the Romanesque style as "Persian decorative motives, which were combined with the rhythms of northern ornament." When Europeans returned from the Crusades, they brought bits of Levantine culture back with them, and one that stuck and persisted for centuries was the style of vegetal border ornament in manuscripts, tapestries, and sculpture. The Persian motifs that were so popular in the Levant spread so fast, because they easily accorded with the rhythms of Germanic ornament, which itself was characterized by a similar floral elaboration. This is best exemplified in the Ottonian style, which is now considered an absolute high point of art in the Middle Ages. It set the tone for the Romanesque and eventually that of the High Gothic as well. Had Levantine vegetal ornament, with its analogous forms, not been imported by those returning from the Crusades, perhaps native European vegetal ornament would have had a negligible effect on the art of Europe. As it stands, vegetal ornament had a long and venerable tradition, and it is very likely that this is because artists apperceived Levantine motifs as basically the same as their own, and transferred them with no compunction whatsoever.

So it goes with language as well. For example, German speakers in Namibia had decades of exposure to Afrikaans. This led to importation of some elements of Afrikaans grammar that were easily grasped because they had similar homologs in German. While in German, the um ... zu construction is only used to express intent, in Afrikaans om ... te is devoid of this meaning and is simply used for infinitival clauses. Germans latched on to this and imported it, so that it is no longer odd to hear a speaker of Namibian or Natalian German say "Es macht Spaß, um krieket zu spielen." This was in part motivated by the fact that the um ... zu construction had been spreading for a long while (Curme 1952:488), but apparently also because the sense was not so very different as to cause confusion. Overall, the great

3 While the stability of the theory of genetic relationships between languages has been compromised ever since Trubetzkoy published his paper on the typological problems with Indo-European (Trubetzkoy 2001), it is generally accepted that the languages we are looking at here, that is, German, Cape Dutch, and Afrikaans are all genetically related.

19

similarity of so many constructions has led to a deep and lasting impact on the German of Namibia. Constrast this against the very few Khoekhoe loans, which stem from a language that is almost totally alien to German and offers virtually no points of convergence.

As should be becoming clear, sometimes apperception in contact can hasten linguistic development. While the case of um ... zu and om ... te is one of a change of course - German had developed an intentional aspect, while Afrikaans had developed a merely mechanistic one - sometimes changes that are already underway are given a jumpstart. This idea occurred to William Dwight Whitney as well (1881:19): "Or, again, is it conceivable that there may have been a period in the history of Chinese when the borrowing of plainly agglutinated words was able to quicken the Chinese itself into the adoption of agglutinative processes?"

Roman Jakobson, who was a Peirce devotee, wrote an article on the isoglosses of linguistic affinity that touches on this important catalytic aspect of apperception: "A language accepts foreign structural elements only when they correspond to its own developmental tendencies. Consequently, the importation of elements of vocabulary cannot be a driving force for phonological development, but rather, at the most, one of the sources utilized for the needs of this development." (1990:208).

It is clear, then, that when the linguistic researcher seeks the most profound changes in a linguistic contact situation, it is best to first look to the input languages with a low differential to the recipient language. Here the deepest changes are likely to be found.

2.5.3 APPERCEPTION AND WORDS WITH MULTIPLE SOURCES

In examining the results of language contact situations, what strikes one is how often one comes across a word or grammatical form that is traceable to two or more possible sources. Oftentimes a reasonable, probable derivation can be drawn that takes both words into account. For example, in modern standard Dutch, the auxiliary verb comes before the past participle in subordinated clauses: dat ik de man heb gezien 'that I have seen the man'. In Afrikaans, the auxiliary comes after the participle: dat ek die man gesien het. In seventeenth century Dutch there was a vascillating system in which both aux. + part. and part. + aux. occurred. In the (southern) chancery and VOC Dutch of this era, there was a preference for part. + aux. (Stroops 1977). Now, in German the word order is like that of Afrikaans and the chancery style: dass ich den Mann gesehen habe. In looking at Afrikaans, the two options of German influence and continuity from the seventeenth century present themselves. Neither is a slam-dunk; they are equally probable candidates. It therefore stands to reason, especially when one is cognizant of the workings of apperception, that the Afrikaans construction has two origins: German and seventeenth century chancery Dutch.

In examining a language such as Afrikaans, which has multiple inputs and numerous confounding phenomena, one sees many cases in which there are more than one probable source for a given item. While I came to this conclusion independently, I was not the first to think of it. Frederic Cassidy outlined precisely this phenomenon in an article called "Multiple Etymologies in Jamaican Creole" (Cassidy 1966), and, eerily enough, in almost the same wording in a paper I wrote on this topic. Mühlhäusler (1982:101-8), Wexler (1983:257) and Rickford (1986:269) provide further instantiations of this phenomenon, and one can hardly doubt its validity. If there is any weakness here, it is in Cassidy's nomenclature, because it is not the etymologies that are multiple, but rather the sources that are. Zucker-mann's term "multisourced neologization" is closer to the mark, though far less wieldy.

20

The type of thinking that will produce something like this is, of course, apperception. This is the case with Afrikaans baie, which had the inputs Malay banjak 'very, many, often', VOC Dutch banjer 'very, many' and Low German bannig 'very, great'. The Malay speaker apperceived the Dutch speaker's banjer as banjak, the German speaker apperceived banjak as bannig, and the Dutch speaker bannig as banjer. As Peirce points out in respect of abduction, the process is quick and fresh, pre-conscious. All of these words are largely homophonous and synonymous, which makes these words easily identifiable as one's native word, and thus a result of apperception.

Einar Haugen (1969:386-7) noticed a similar occurrence in American Norwegian, which he called an "interlingual coincidence". His favorite example of this is American Norwegian korn 'maize', which in continental Norwegian means 'grain, cereals'. The word has a Norwegian form and pronunciation, but the meaning 'maize' is unknown in Norway. Here we face two options: 1) the Norwegian word gained the meaning of American English corn at the expense of continental 'grain, cereals' (semantic extension) or 2) corn was borrowed and phonetically adapted by American Norwegian speakers (pure loanword), though in the last analysis, it is impossible to say which langugage the word comes from. That is to say, if we could go back in time to the moment when korn was first used in the sense 'maize', we might be able to ascertain its true provenance. But if it was understood in this sense by speakers of both languages when it was first used - and it very probably was - then the fact of literal priority becomes trivial. Similarly, American English dumb 'stupid' could be Pennsylvania Dutch dumm or it could be dumb 'mute' with the Pennsylvania Dutch meaning 'stupid'. American Swedish has a similar case with resa "resa corn, vete", "resa hell" (Hasselmo 1974:191-2). Of course, these examples are from Germanic dialects, which, being closely related, lend themselves to such convergence, but sometimes this type of merger comes about between totally unrelated languages; take, for example, Afrikaans saam 'together, with', which, on account of the idiosyncratic way it is used in Afrikaans, (sny die brood met die mes saam lit. 'cut the bread together with the knife') must have arisen by convergence with Malay sama which means, among other things, 'companionship, along with' – Bosman (1923:116) sees German mit samt einem Messer as a contributing factor. These are all interlingual coincidences, because it is pure happenstance that they are both homophonous and synonymous. In Peircean terms, they are tychastic.

As was suggested above, this cognitive process is not limited to language acquisition. As was mentioned above, it can happen in art, which is a sign system too. Another sign system, myth, can evince similar processes and results. Uriel Weinreich (1974:49) notes in discussing American Norwegian korn 'maize' and its being an interlingual coincidence, that "An equivalent phenomenon in culture contact is represented by the so-called syncretisms, or unified entities of bi-cultural derivation. Greenberg [1941] has shown that North African Negroes easily accept the belief in the Mohammedan jinn because they identify it with their aboriginal iskoki spirits, just as Catholic saints have been identified by Latin American Negroes with African deities", see Bloomfield's comments on Easter above.

Because speakers will, in contact situations, gravitate towards that which is familiar, and because these phenomena are easily apperceived, they will by virtue of that predominate. By looking at these phenomena, we can best see the most profound changes in a language. Peirce thought that abduction is "free and brilliant, and not altogether secure" (Reilly 1970:37), but Haugen's categories go a ways in describing its workings. This is all to say that because contact between languages with low differentials can be so profound, we should always look first to them, for, on account of the subconscious nature of apperception, these linguistic items can easily go uncorrected because unnoticed. Once they've been established,

21

because of their apperceptibility and thus familiarity, they can persist and spread, forming a large class of contact phenomena.

22

PART ONE

GERMAN AND CAPE DUTCH IN THE CAPE COLONY, CA. 1650 – 1810

23

CHAPTER III

AN EXTERNAL HISTORY OF GERMAN AND CAPE DUTCH, CA. 1650 – 1810

3.0 INTRODUCTION The role and nature of German immigration to the Cape of Good Hope has been the subject of much debate. While its greatest bearing is on the field of genealogy, it is also of value to the linguist. In the following pages, I sketch out both the demography and the history of German immigration, and finally touch on the geographic background of these immigrants and the scholarly opinions that have been offered on the subject. Drawing linguistic conclusions from sociological and historical data is always a spurious undertaking, but so too is the analysis of linguistic data without regard to the social context within which speakers move. The chapter at hand is therefore offered in the interests of giving a clearer picture of German speech on the Cape. 3.1 A DEMOGRAPHY OF GERMAN IMMIGRATION TO THE CAPE The German presence at the Cape of Good Hope began in 1652, the year in which Jan van Riebeeck established a victualing station at Table Bay on behalf of the Dutch East India Company (from now on VOC, for Vereenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie 'United East Indian Company'). The VOC was started in 1602 as a trade monopoly sanctioned by the States-General of the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands. It grew quickly and was hugely profitable. Germans, especially from the north and west of the Holy Roman Empire (modern-day Germany), were drawn by the prospect of working for this lucrative cartel. Their economic motivation was compounded when the Thirty Years' War (1618-1648CE) broke out and ruined their economy, sending German emigrants flooding out and going, among other places, to the Netherlands. They usually spent some time there before being shipped out on VOC business, during which they were able to gain a familiarity with the Dutch language, a task which was easier for those who came from the LG-speaking north or the dialectally-related west of the Holy Roman Empire. From the VOC's inception in 1602 to its conclusion in 1795, Germans worked as soldiers, sailors, administrators and all manner of craftsmen in both the Netherlands and abroad, and were an integral component to VOC culture, see Van Gelder (1997).

One of the characteristics of German immigrants to the Cape is that they came as individuals, never as whole communities, as the French Refugees of 1687 had. Virtually all of them came from the ranks of the VOC, though their transitions from VOC employee to colonist could take a few paths. Some were given vrybriewe 'permits' to live and work as Vryburgers 'Free Burghers', others took hiatuses from their VOC service to hire their labor out to settlers. The variety of work they did matched the variety of trades needed by the

24

VOC: they were soldiers, sailors, joiners, carpenters, bricklayers, blacksmiths, coopers, tanners, glassmakers, wainwrights, stablemen, or, as higher officials such as doctors, teachers, military officers and ministers (Hoge 1945:159). While most immigrants were artisans and farmers, some were from more middle class families, and there were even a few from the aristocracy, such as Joachim Nikolaus von Dessin, Johann Konrad von Breitenbach and Christoph Otto von Kampts. The officer class of the VOC military was rife with Germans, far too many to name. Germans were also well represented as lower-level bureaucrats, amongst whom were the descendants of German founding fathers, such as the Neethlings (Nöthlings), Allemanns, Horaks, Trüters, Blettermanns and Wentzels. One can almost speak of bureacratic dynasties here, as in the cases of the Neethlings and the Horaks (Hoge 1945:160). While Germans were merely numerous in some professions, in others they simply dominated, such as those of soldiers, stablemen or wagoners. As was the case with lower-level bureaucratic posotions, they were also sometimes in the numerical majority in a profession, but did not dominate it. For example, many families in the countryside were too far from the main population centers of Capetown, Graaff-Reinet, Stellenbosch, or Swellendam to send their children to a school, and consequently had to hire on tutors for their children. Of the 150 tutors that we know of who worked on the Cape in the years 1692-1792, 66 were German and 59 were Dutch (Ponelis 1993:45). Germans also worked as school headmasters and lecturers, see Franken (1934), Hoge (1945:162-4). The job of minister was an important one in a culture as fervently Calvanistic as that of the Cape Dutch/Afrikaners, and Germans filled these positions as well.

While Germans plied all manner of trades on the Cape, and permeated society as they did, it must be noted, that not all who became Vryburgers had a successful go at it, and not all who hired their services out to the local population ended up staying on after the expiration of their contracts. In fact, Hoge determined that, of the roughly 14,000 Germans who made their way to the Cape between 1652 and 1789, about 10,000 did not stay on (Hoge 1946), and the remaining 4,000 did. Of those 4,000, only 842 are counted among the 1593 founding fathers of the Afrikaner nation. While the vast majority of the Germans who came to the Cape were men who married Cape Dutch women and were quickly assimilated into Cape society, some German women did arrive, and some of them even came disguised as men. The total number of German women on the Cape never exceeded 100, and almost no German households were established (Hoge 1945:158; 1946:488-92). As Ponelis (1993:17-8) points out, there are many German last names amongst Afrikaners, which attests to the overwhelmingly male immigration to the Cape. But first names are common too, though their popularity speaks more to the cultural rather than the ethnic impact of Germans on Afrikaner culture, see Combrink (1994).

The first attempt to calculate the percentages of the various nations that contributed to the Afrikaner people was done by the father of South African history, George McCall Theal. Theal (1897b:323-4) based his numbers on C.C. de Villiers' Geslacht-Registers der Oude Kaapsche Familiën – which he assisted in the production of – and on church registers. He reckoned that the 1526 men listed in said registers who either brought their wives or families with them to the Cape, or married on the Cape and had children, are to be considered the founding fathers of the Afrikaner people. The place of origin for 1391 of them was asc